| Australian Workplace Agreement |
Article Index for Australian |
Website Links For Australian |
Information AboutAustralian Workplace Agreement |
| CATEGORIES ABOUT AUSTRALIAN WORKPLACE AGREEMENT | |
| australian labour law | |
| SHOPPER'S DELIGHT | |
|
The no disadvantage test is applied by the OEA and is a check that the agreement must, considered as a whole, roughly be equivalent to the applicable award. AWAs which fail the test may still be registered if it is in the public interest to do so. A workplace may be covered by an existing Enterprise Agreement specifying conditions above the award, which may mean that the AWA is a reduction in standard workplace conditions. OPPOSING VIEWS The Government view is that: "''AWAs give employers and employees flexibility in setting wages and conditions, and enable them to agree on arrangements that suit their workplaces and individual preferences. AWAs offer an employer and employees the opportunity to make an agreement that best suits the specific needs of individual employees. An existing employee cannot be forced to sign an AWA.''" {Link without Title} The view articulated by the ACTU and the union movement generally is that AWAs are an attempt to undermine the Collective Bargaining power of Trade Union s in the negotiation of pay and conditions of their members. Unions argue that the ordinary working person has no bargaining power by themselves to effectively negotiate an agreement with an employer, hence there is inherently unequal bargaining power for the contract. For exceptional individuals in a workplace, the union movement argues that common law contracts are sufficient. While Commercial law, and even common law provides for fairness and equality of bargaining power, AWAs are designed to entrench inequality between an employer and their workforce with regard to pay and conditions. The policy of the ACTU is that AWA's should be abolished and that the bargaining system should contain collective bargaining rights. Most unions warn their members to be very cautious about signing AWAs, and if they do so, to appoint the union as their ''bargaining agent''. For example, the Australian Services Union warns members: "''AWAs are about one thing: tipping the balance of power more firmly towards your employer and away from you.'' {Link without Title} COVERAGE OF AWAS Despite active promotion by the Howard Government and Workplace Relations Minister Peter Reith since 1996 , AWAs have only achieved coverage of about 2.4 % of the workforce up to 2005 (''Australian Bureau of Statistics''). Mining companies have pushed the agreements with some success, offering substantial increases in pay to workers who chose to sign an AWA. According to OEA, 1,410,900 persons were covered under Union Certified Agreements , 168,500 were covered under non-union Certified Agreements, and there were 421,800 Australian Workplace Agreements, as at 31 December 2004. ''Australian Bureau of Statistics'' figures for March 2005 give a much more realistic total picture showing that hourly wages of workers on AWAs were 2 % lower than the hourly wages of workers on registered collective agreements, mostly negotiated by unions. For women, AWAs paid 11 % less per hour than collective agreements. "''The most common methods of setting pay for all employees were registered collective agreement (38.3%), unregistered individual arrangement (31.2%) and award only (20.0%). Unregistered collective agreement (2.6%) and registered individual agreement (2.4%) were the least common methods of setting pay. The remaining 5.4% of employees were working proprietors of incorporated businesses.''" {Link without Title} AWAs have also faired poorly in the federal public service, with the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations reporting, as of December 31 2004, that out of 124,500 public and parliamentary service permanent staff there were only 11,085 AWAs covering 1928 Senior Executive Service (SES), where AWAs are compulsory, and 9157 other employees — a total of only 8.9% of staff. The rest of the permanent staff were covered, as at March 30 2005, by 101 certified agreements, of which 70 were union enterprise agreements and 31 non-union enterprise agreements. In the Western Australian Parliament in May 2005, the Minister for Consumer and Employment Protection stated there is a trend for Australian Workplace Agreements to be used to reduce wages and conditions of employment in Western Australia. {Link without Title} RECENT CHANGES TO AWAS The Howard Government announced its next round of Industrial Relations Reforms during May 2005 which came into affect in March 2006. These included the stream-lining of certified agreement and Australian Workplace Agreement making; increasing the maximum agreement life from three years to five years; and discouragement of pattern bargaining and industry-wide industrial action. These changes are actively opposed by the ACTU , ALP and the Australian Labour Movement generally. AWAs under the new Act will now only have to meet 5 minimum standards. These are:
AWAs will only have to pay above the minimum wage, to be set by the Australian Fair Pay Commission . This means that industrial awards have been side stepped in determining the minimum to be paid to employees in Australia. State Labor Governments argue this will reduce the wages of many low income people, particularly those that rely on Award rates of pay. {Link without Title} SEE ALSO
REFERENCES
EXTERNAL LINKS
|